Creating a mosaic of a world in dynamic cultural exchange: one scholarly interview at a time.
Here we explore liminal spaces and the contours of reality; the myriad of ways people interact with their world through the vehicles of ritual, cult, and lore.
Topics include: the Classics, the esoteric traditions of antique philosophy, Hellenic, Egyptian, and Roman cult, Greek and Roman novels, early Judaism and Christianity, and the general historical milieu of antiquity...
And Lucian- as much Lucian as possible.
N.B.: this podcast takes its name from M David Litwa's book We Are Being Transformed: Deification in Paul's Soteriology (de Gruyter, 2012). Used with permission- all rights belong to M David Litwa
WABT is produced by Jason A @SobekLOTFC
Edited by Faceless βασιλεύς (δαίμων-rangling courtesy of Apuleius and Testament of Solomon)
Opening theme song: 'FOCUS' by Brant Showers of @∆AIMON and @SØLVE courtesy of Brant Showers
“Yes” on the travel guide ! Not so much on the controversial stuff for me ! More class room lectures type vids. No matter what, you are doing a great job Sir !
Ohhh looking forward to this!! I ascribe to some beliefs included in the Nag Hammadi library and so sometimes use that term to describe myself because thats what people understand better in non-academic circles. What do people think about that? Colloquially many of us use terms for our practices that in academic circles sound ridiculous.
I always thought that gnosticism as a broader category was related to non substancialist metaphysics, especially those that denies reality and advocates for the emanation of the "real world" or the "real God" by gaining some "knowledge"... in other words, it have validity inside religions and even outside them (in ideology e.g. Comte, Saint Simon, Jacobinism Marx and in some schools of philosophy e.g Hegel, Rousseau, French postmodernist, Frankfurt School)
Gnosticism/ Occultism/ Theosophy all wrapped in a pretty bow!!! This Jeffrey is unbelievable.. literally. Sorry I’ll stay with the God of the Bible.. the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob… DO NOT BE DECEIVED! BEWARE!!! It is coming!
Apocalyptic literature as we think of it in scholarship doesn't show up in the historical record until well into the Hellenistic period. Scholars like to push it back as far as they can for all types of arbitrary reasons, but even philo and Josephus admit that the world didn't have these texts until the Septuagint appeared. They claim there was some Hebrew version tucked away for God knows how long, but believing in that part of the narrative is just naive. This would place apocalyptic literature after Platos highly circulated myth of Er. The myth of Er is about a soldier who surveys heaven at the end of an age and is called to be a watcher of souls. This highly influential text would be the influence of all the other subsequent apocalypses. The gnostic apocalypses would then be highly platonic. This is logical since in so many other ways they are also platonic. This would mean that Plotinus, as someone who was so familiar with Platonic myth, was gaslighting, and certainly had another motivation. Being that he was so close to Christian circles, he most likely followed the trend so prevalent at the time, set by the people in those circles he frequently rubbed shoulders with, and aimed to snuff out gnosticism for less altruistic reasons. I mean c'mon, are we really gonna trust a guy who refused to allow an "image" of himself to be made, or even give a single detail about his origin besides the fact that he tricked his nurse into "giving him suck" until he was shamed for it at 8 years old? For being a "teacher of truth" he sure did have a lot to hide about his identity. Since gnostic thought started gaining traction they suffered very calculated attacks from multiple different angles, and those attacks became more sophisticated in the 3rd century. There's no doubt Plotinus was just another one of the dozens who participated. The church was obsessed with these gnostic thinkers all the way up until the 13th century because their teachings ruin the entire idea of a church hierarchy as it existed at that time and the elite thrive off that system, so it is not out of the realm of possibility at all for them to have hired a couple philosophical types from the circles they were a part of, in order to set that system up. They knew how beneficial it would be for them, one of those goofy "neoplatonists" must have been a paid op. Look at how much the neoplatonists contributed to superstition amongst the empire, with their rationalization of magic which is not rational and Plato hated, and look at how much magical superstition amongst the empire paved the way for a Catholic hierarchy. The dots are there, just gotta connect em. Neoplatonists promoted magic. Plato was against promoting magic. That means neoplatonists are not genuine. Magic helped the fall of Rome. The fall of Rome helped the rise of the Catholic church. Therefore, the neoplatonists, who weren't genuine, helped the rise of the Catholic church. Now did these men do it on purpose? They were a part of the elite, of course they knew what they were doing.
Such a great topic. So interesting. Would love it to have been longer. Great interview. I'm now hooked on this channel. Watched Brakke yesterday. This is really good stuff
Justin's a fantastic scholar with a great sense of humour. Maybe try and do more collaborative videos with other high subscriber counts as this channel is a gem too.
Good stuff. I read Bruce Maclennans 'Wisdom of Hypatia' which was very much in agreement with Watts but also mingled Hadot's practices for a lived philosophy.
Thanks, good video. It's funny cos I just watched a video with Jason Jorjani interpreting almost every thinker and religion, especially Plato, through the lens of Zoroastrianism with the implication of cultural superiority. I can understand his frustration regarding the role usually given to Persia in the history of thought but, as mentioned in this video, he goes too far.
@27:40 People who deny the ancient civilizations existed, or the very human accomplishments of them, your 'there was a superior race who did this' types =/= Mythicists I'll opt for ignorance rather than an intention to conflate those concepts. Since the time of Rome adopting Christianity as its state religion, until some time around 1700 or so, "Biblical scholars" were _exclusively_ Christians, who were in no way studying the scriptures, cultures, and "history" of them in a way that anyone in (Non statement of faith requiring) academic institutions today would consider a rigorous, soundly methodological way. And before 1700 or so, to suggest that there was reason to doubt the scriptures historical claims, was a sure fire way to get yourself killed. Think modern day Iran for a Muslim scholar, ain't gonna hear much dissent from anyone there for the same reason. Thus for the majority of the past 2000 years, all the "known facts" such as Jesus was an actual, verified historical figure, were disseminated by Christian scholars. Enter the modem historian - It turns out that the certainty that that "fact" has enjoyed for centuries, isn't entirely justified. Like it, or not, but the more that historians, and experts in classics, look at this subject not from the view of affirming convictions of faith, but through the same lens as they would any other evidence, applying the same standards of evidence and context to form conclusions, the more legendary and mythical Jesus appears to be. There are many modern scholars who do not say that they think Jesus was not historical., Many will day they think it likely that the Jesus in Paul's epistles was one of many apocalyptic preachers of the time and place, that Paul had good reason to believe actually existed. But even then, they're not claiming that's a slam- dunk fact. There are a growing number of historians and classicists who will absolutely tell you that they do not hold the Jesus of the Gospels to be any accurate representation of a real person from history. Largely because of the teensy issue of the Gospel of Mark, accepted as the earliest Gospel, being written as a fictional story, with well established themes and tropes of the time. It is not written as historical biographies of that time and place were written. The latter additions in Matthew and Luke are well- known and again, not indicative of historical biography, though the author of Luke does appear to attempt to bring the air of legitimacy by suggesting that Gospel is historical, but then proceeds to get known historical facts wrong. Anyway, I would recommend anyone interested look into the subject. I think you will find that it is almost entirely Christian scholars who act as though this idea is nonsensical fringe lunacy, as they simultaneously fail to make a convincing case, using good methodologies and critical evaluation of evidence.
Superb doc. Thank you. I totally agree with Dr walsh, for the last 2500 years Homer reigns supreme amongst learned individuals concerning literature, and those desiring to learn literature in it's finest of forms begin (or should begin) with Homer.
Young Heracles with firm disdain braved the soft smiles of pleasures harlot train to valiant toils his forceful limbs assigned and gave to virtue all his mighty mind.
Thank you. Great discussion. The hymn to Demeter was the text that started my interest in religious syncretism. I had read this this for some reason, then heard plutarchs version of Isis and Osiris at school. Two different goddesses burning babies blew my mind at the time. I also like to read daffodils by Wordsworth with the hymn to Demeter in mind. All those personified daffodils with their little heads.
A fascinating discussion! I wonder, to what extent did the shift in how Romans determined senatorial status impact later concepts of feudalism, particularly in Frankish territory? I'm definitely going to check out the book to see if I can find an answer! Great stuff! ❤
